Astronomers should be sued for false advertizing. (2)

[Michael]

Did you know that you pay nothing to submit manuscripts to scientific journals?

Page charges - The Astrophysical Journal - IOPscience

Which ones? The less influential ones perhaps?

If you wrote a scientific critique about it, you might actually have some influence (if you were right).

I frankly think that Galileo had more hope to change the opinions of the Vatican than anyone has to change the opinions of the mainstream as it relates to their unwavering faith in invisible sky entities.

 

[CabVet]

Page charges - The Astrophysical Journal - IOPscience

Which ones? The less influential ones perhaps?

There is not a single journal that charges for submission. I will give you two that charge neither for submission nor publication, and I like to think they are pretty influential: Science and Nature. But tell you what, if you come back with an acceptance letter from the Astrophysical Journal I am sure we can raise the funds for your publication.

I frankly think that Galileo had more hope to change the opinions of the Vatican than anyone has to change the opinions of the mainstream as it relates to their unwavering faith in invisible sky entities.

Yet, I don't see you trying.

 

[Michael]

There is not a single journal that charges for submission. I will give you two that charge neither for submission nor publication, and I like to think they are pretty influential: Science and Nature. But tell you what, if you come back with an acceptance letter from the Astrophysical Journal I am sure we can raise the funds for your publication.

Oh, I see. You don't seem to mind the fact that to even get an audience with your brand of a Pope/Vatican and even reach a larger population, I have to first "get approval" from the Vatican and and then I get to pay them money to ensure the fact that that they actually publish the truth. LOL!

Yet, I don't see you trying.

I've already gone through the process of publication on other topics, and absolutely nothing changes. Here's a great example of the irrational bias of the astronomy community at the moment:

Flying Space Toasters: Electrified Exoplanets Really Feel the Heat

(And before anyone attempts to suggest this process supports the alternative “electric universe” (EU) theory… um, no.)

Even before quoting the good Dr Buzasi, Jason Major apparently has some strong emotional need to interject his prejudices into the conversation in an effort to "put down" the one cosmology theory that actually *predicts* this sort of sun/planet electrical activity. The hostility towards electric sun theory and all things electrical in space is more than palpable, it's talked about openly and with contempt:

“No, nothing EU-like at all in my model,” Dr. Buzasi told Universe Today in an email. “I just look at how the field aligned currents that we see in the terrestrial magnetosphere/ionosphere act in a hot Jupiter environment, and it turns out that a significant fraction of the resulting circuit closes inside the planet (in the outer 10% of the radius, mostly) where it deposits a meaningful amount of heat.”

What a completely erroneous quote! Apparently Dr. Buzasi is simply ignorant of EU/PC theory, and/or he is irrationally prejudiced beyond belief. There is *absolutely everything like* EU theory found in that "model" that he's proposing. In fact that sort of "circuitry" was first proposed by Hannes Alfven himself in relationship to the Earth/Sun connection.

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/Alfven/A Three Ring Circuit Model OfThe Magnetosphere.pdf

Apparently Dr. Buzasi neither understands the history of EU/PC theory, nor does he care to learn about it. Apparently he does not have a clue, nor does he give us a hint as to why those field aligned currents start at the sun, nor does he know where the rest of the field aligned currents from the sun end. He's basically ignoring the entire history of EU theory, starting with Birkeland's "cathode sun" theories!

For the record, yes Dr Buzasi, you are talking specifically about a *key prediction* of EU/PC theory, specifically the sun/planetary circuits that develop between electric suns and planets in EU/PC theory! Bah!

Astronomers are not only *disinterested* in EU theory, they bash the concept publicly, even when describing one of it's successful predictions! They don't want to know the truth about electrical currents and circuits in space. In fact, they won't even talk about them without taking cheap, irrational, even emotional shots at a form of pure empirical physics, specifically EU theory. It's absolutely pathetic behavior.

 

[CabVet]

Oh, I see. You don't seem to mind the fact that to even get an audience with your brand of a Pope/Vatican and even reach a larger population, I have to first "get approval" from the Vatican and and then pay them money to publish the truth. LOL!

Not even close to what I said. I will stop this conversation now if you keep putting words in my mouth so that you can "defeat" my points. You keep saying that you have genuine scientific disagreements with the scientific community. My suggestion to you is to publish it. Simple.

I've already gone through the process of publication on other topics, and absolutely nothing changes.

Link me to one of your publications, please.

 

[Michael]

Not even close to what I said. I will stop this conversation now if you keep putting words in my mouth so that you can "defeat" my points. You keep saying that you have genuine scientific disagreements with the scientific community. My suggestion to you is to publish it. Simple.

I tried taking the high road and I did it your way first. I started by presenting/publishing some EU theories related to solar physics. For my efforts, I was virtually lynched at Cosmoquest while publicly defending the idea there, and now nobody can even discuss that topic on their forum anymore.

Link me to one of your publications, please.

arXiv.org Search

 

[CabVet]

I tried taking the high road and I did it your way first. I started by presenting/publishing some EU theories related to solar physics. For my efforts, I was virtually lynched at Cosmoquest while publicly defending the idea there, and now nobody can even discuss that topic on their forum anymore.

Well, all I can tell you is that you will accomplish a lot less than that here.

arXiv.org Search

Good on you, I wish I understood physics well enough to debate those with you.

 

[Michael]

Well, all I can tell you is that you will accomplish a lot less than that here.

Actually I at least enjoy my discussions and the company here. IMO, that itself is an accomplishment.

Good on you, I wish I understood physics well enough to debate those with you.

Assuming you did wish to discuss it, at least you have that opportunity here. The mainstream astronomy websites on the internet tend to 'shelter the flock' from any sort of criticisms of mainstream theory, and they tend to limit any exposure to 'against the mainstream" ideas.

 

[Davian]

Actually I didn't read that one. I supposed I deserved that.

You have a strange sense of "cause/effect" relationships. Without the electrical current flowing through them, would they have died?

My point was that electrocution is not 'death by EM field'. Do try to keep on topic.

FYI, that same "intricate rational" was developed to explain the absence of cosmological inflation on Earth, the effects of dark energy on Earth, the failures of SUSY theories/hypothesis at LHC, etc.

Only in your straw man version of it.

You could demonstrate that the universe that we live inside of is not "electric". That is essentially the "mainstream" position by the way.

You would like me to prove a negative? You are not doing science, are you?

You seem intent on burning all stamps with the word "God" on them, yet you ignore all the dark energy stamps, the inflation stamps, the exotic matter stamps, etc. What's up with that double standard?

No double standard. You are just taking it personally.

It's an extraordinary claim that dark energy even exists in nature, and an additional extraordinary claim that it has a tangible effect on photons too.

No, it is not. Not like "God". You are making this personal.

Inflation theory does make claims about where my tax dollars should be spent in terms of the "science" money that is dedicated toward cosmology theory however. That part is the part I find offensive and the part I take exception to.

Because you are not getting some of that money? Irregardless, what I said was that inflation theory makes no claim about what you should or should not being doing in your bedroom, and with whom. You are comparing apples to orange crates.

You could start by demonstrating that the universe isn't electric in nature, and electrically active like a brain.

Again, you would like me to prove a negative? You are not doing science, are you?

ELECTROmagnetic fields include current. In fact, magnetic fields are a direct result of the movement of charged particles, even in solid magnets.

Which is it? Magnetic fields include current, or are caused by current?

How do you know that?

Absence of evidence, particularly in the posts where you are responding to my requests for such evidence.

You'll have to define "found in nature" for me because apparently what you think is found in nature and what I think is found in nature are two entirely different things.

Not man-made.

No, you're definitely moving them. You seem only intent on focusing on a theory related to God, specifically one that involves an "electric God" that uses EM fields in terms of his physical manifestations.

You seem unwilling and/or unable to "compare" one cosmology concept to another in terms of "act of faith" required in each theory. Why? If we're going to be completely honest, we can't apply two different standards to two different cosmology "beliefs".

I'm not ascribing anything to the universe that isn't also found here on Earth in great abundance, including EM fields and awareness. Apparently you seem to think there is some sort of scientific disconnect between awareness and EM fields? I'm not seeing a valid objection here yet, just you dragging your feet over the physical effects of EM fields on the human brain. Is that your basic "beef" with a panetheistic/electric universe theory?

Yes, your inability to demonstrate the physical effects of naturally occurring EM fields on the human brain.

You said "An electric universe would definitely be able to have an EM influence on humans".

Show me an experiment the replicates the EM fields found in nature, and the measured effects - the influence - they have on the human brain.

 

[Davian]

Considering how much "missing mass" has been found inside of "normal" matter in the past few years, any concept of exotic forms of matter amount to no more than "wishful thinking" on the part of the "believer". That's certainly true if we toss in the results thus from from LHC. Every "popular" SUSY and WIMP theory went up in smoke. What's left now are the "bottom of the barrel" ideas that haven't already been falsified by the data.

God concepts often involve wishful thinking for afterlives and ultimate justice. You are comparing apples to orange crates.

An observation of redshifted photons is all we really "observe". <snip rant>

Yes, they are based on observation.

Nope, they are exactly alike. I already showed you evidence that should "falsify" inflation theory in the form of a 4 billion light year long structure that should not exist in Lambda-CDM. Nothing changed as a result of that revelation. The *religion* of Lambda-CDM lives on *in spite of* the failures of exotic matter theories at LHC, and *in spite of* the actual observations!

Exactly alike? Are you so intent on maintaining this rant that you do not read my posts? Show me where Lambda-CDM posits an afterlife.

 

[Michael]

God concepts often involve wishful thinking for afterlives and ultimate justice. You are comparing apples to orange crates.

Dark energy contracts typically involve payment in the here and now. If anything, the gratification is faster in terms of "faith in dark sky entities". In fact the lack of faith in dark sky entities can be fatal to ones professional future.

Yes, they are based on observation.

I "observe" that humans from around the globe have reported communing with something they call 'God' since humans first started writing! You have made a series of unsubstantiated connections between redshift and dark energy, and "missing mass" and "exotic matter". You don't "observe" dark stuff do you?

Exactly alike? Are you so intent on maintaining this rant that you do not read my posts? Show me where Lambda-CDM posits an afterlife.

Apparently it posits a professional life in the here and now, whereas 'doubt' will get you fired. I'd say the incentive to toeing the line is far greater for an astronomer in terms of it's direct impact on one's financial well being.

 

[Michael]

My point was that electrocution is not 'death by EM field'. Do try to keep on topic.

Um, yes, it is. Without the current and the corresponding magnetic fields that are created by that current, the person would not die. You're essentially trying to ignore the direct role that AC/DC has on human forms. Tsk, tsk on you, but not my problem.

You would like me to prove a negative? You are not doing science, are you?

You seem to simply expect me to 'have faith' that 'dark energy' (no cited source) somehow has a tangible effect on a photon. You can't demonstrate that claim. Are you doing science? How can I disprove a negative? Have you ever positively made your case that dark energy has an effect on photons in controlled experimentation?

No double standard. You are just taking it personally.

No, I'm just noting the fact that you impose two entirely different standards, one that relates to the topic of God, and a completely different standard that you apply to anything with the label 'science' attached to it.

I don't see you complaining about the lack of demonstrated cause/effect justification for claiming that "dark energy" has some tangible effect on a photon. I've seen no demonstrated cause/effect link between "missing mass" and "exotic mass" either. In fact I've seen astronomers locate more mass in the past 5 years inside of ordinary plasma and dust than they had located in the whole of human history prior to 2007 or so. I have absolutely every reason to believe that astronomers botched their galaxy mass estimates, and I have no evidence at all to support any claims related to exotic matter. In fact, all the 'popular' scientific theories related to exotic matter were already falsified by LHC. We're now doing the bottom feeder rendition of scraping the bottom of the barrel, hoping for some sort of scientific 'miracle' apparently.

No, it is not. Not like "God". You are making this personal.

It doesn't actually appear to me to be "personal". It seems to be more of a bias related to anything with the label "God", vs. the way you treat any other topic of human interest. Have you ever seen a 'dark matter' particle? Why aren't you crusading against exotic matter theories?

Because you are not getting some of that money?

No, because it's *my* money being *wasted* on metaphysical invisible sky nonsense. I don't even personally want the money back, I want it to be used for something useful instead of being wasted on nonsense.

Irregardless, what I said was that inflation theory makes no claim about what you should or should not being doing in your bedroom, and with whom. You are comparing apples to orange crates.

It apparently has some sway over where my money is spent every month! I don't personally care what you do in your bedroom assuming it's between two consenting adults. I'm not forcing you to spend money on metaphysical nonsense either. Which is actually more invasive to a checkbook?

Again, you would like me to prove a negative? You are not doing science, are you?

When did you folks demonstrate a positive to start with? I can and have linked charged particle movement to "magnetic lines' and magnetic fields that we find in space. You can't even do that much with "dark energy", nor can you show that it has any effect on a photon. You simply expect me to "take it on faith" apparently.

Which is it? Magnetic fields include current, or are caused by current?

The charged particle movement *creates* magnetic fields. Even inside of solid magnets, it's the synchronized movement of electrons inside the material that 'give rise'/cause the magnetic field.

Absence of evidence, particularly in the posts where you are responding to my requests for such evidence.

In essence you *assumed* it!

Absence of evidence compared to what? I can empirically link EM fields to pretty much everything, including million degree plasma, and even *awareness* in the lab! You can't even link dark energy to anything, or any particle, not even a single photon in a lab.

Not man-made.

How are inflation, dark energy and exotic matter *hypothesis* not "man made" in your rationalized concept of "reality"?

Yes, your inability to demonstrate the physical effects of naturally occurring EM fields on the human brain.

God helmet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You seem to be stuck in pure denial as best as I can tell. Even shock treatments would be a way to 'influence the brain' with electromagnetic energy.

You said "An electric universe would definitely be able to have an EM influence on humans".

Show me an experiment the replicates the EM fields found in nature, and the measured effects - the influence - they have on the human brain.

I guess I"ll wait for your to peruse the God Helmet literature and see how you respond (again).

 

[Davian]

Um, yes, it is. Without the current and the corresponding magnetic fields that are created by that current, the person would not die. You're essentially trying to ignore the direct role that AC/DC has on human forms. Tsk, tsk on you, but not my problem.

Electrocution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nothing about EM fields there.

Electrocution is not 'death by EM field'. You are off-topic.

<snip rant>

I said, you would like me to prove a negative?

<snip rant>

No double standards, no matter how you twist it.

It doesn't actually appear to me to be "personal". <snip irrelevant text>

It appears that you are making it personal as you are providing emotional responses rather than scientific.

No, because it's *my* money being *wasted* on metaphysical invisible sky nonsense. I don't even personally want the money back, I want it to be used for something useful instead of being wasted on nonsense.

Such is the nature of tax dollars. Perhaps if you could show that they were wrong on a scientific basis, instead of this ranting that you do.

It apparently has some sway over where my money is spent every month! I don't personally care what you do in your bedroom assuming it's between two consenting adults. I'm not forcing you to spend money on metaphysical nonsense either. Which is actually more invasive to a checkbook?

Does your religion concur with the notion of what happens between two (or more) consenting adults is out of its jurisdiction?

<snip rant>

I asked, you would like me to prove a negative?

The charged particle movement *creates* magnetic fields. Even inside of solid magnets, it's the synchronized movement of electrons inside the material that 'give rise'/cause the magnetic field.

Do try to keep that straight within the same post, k?

In essence you *assumed* it!

Absence of evidence compared to what? I can empirically link EM fields to pretty much everything, including million degree plasma, and even *awareness* in the lab! You can't even link dark energy to anything, or any particle, not even a single photon in a lab.

I am not positing anything about dark energy, am I?

I am referring to absence of evidence for EM fields found in nature influencing the human brain. You may have seen me ask for it in a recent post.

How are inflation, dark energy and exotic matter *hypothesis* not "man made" in your rationalized concept of "reality"?

God helmet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You seem to be stuck in pure denial as best as I can tell. Even shock treatments would be a way to 'influence the brain' with electromagnetic energy.

Electroconvulsive therapy involves current, not EM fields. Were you not aware of this?

Electroconvulsive therapy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I guess I"ll wait for your to peruse the God Helmet literature and see how you respond (again).

Same as I did back for post #723. The "god" helmet is man-made. The referenced article does not state that the experiment replicates EM fields as found in nature. Did you not read it yourself?

You said "An electric universe would definitely be able to have an EM influence on humans".

Show me an experiment the replicates the EM fields found in nature, and the measured effects - the influence - they have on the human brain.

 

[Davian]

Dark energy contracts typically involve payment in the here and now. If anything, the gratification is faster in terms of "faith in dark sky entities". In fact the lack of faith in dark sky entities can be fatal to ones professional future.

So, not the same then. No claims of an 'afterlife' or 'ultimate justice'.

I "observe" that humans from around the globe have reported communing with something they call 'God' since humans first started writing!

Yet scientifically, it has yet to rise above 'wishful thinking'.

You have made a series of unsubstantiated connections between redshift and dark energy, and "missing mass" and "exotic matter". You don't "observe" dark stuff do you?

I have made no such connections, but I would ask, why do *you* think they used the word "dark"? They only observe the effects of what is referred to as dark energy and dark matter.

Apparently it posits a professional life in the here and now, whereas 'doubt' will get you fired. I'd say the incentive to toeing the line is far greater for an astronomer in terms of it's direct impact on one's financial well being.

So they are not exactly alike, are they?

 

[Michael]

So, not the same then. No claims of an 'afterlife' or 'ultimate justice'.

In the sense that one is akin to professional blackmail and the other is akin to 'hope after death', they are a bit different, I'll grant you that. In terms of the effect on the here and now, which do you figure is the most 'important' in terms of being able to eat and keep a roof over your family's head?

Yet scientifically, it has yet to rise above 'wishful thinking'.

As if exotic matter, dark energy and inflation rise above 'wishful thinking' from the same human imagination your fail to trust?

I have made no such connections, but I would ask, why do *you* think they used the word "dark"? They only observe the effects of what is referred to as dark energy and dark matter.

So how come you're just fine with observing the 'effects' of 'dark energy' on distant galaxies, yet you refuse to accept the 'effect' of God on human beings? Double standard much?

So they are not exactly alike, are they?

No, I would say that the professional blackmail is a *much* more invasive way to "get your way" in terms of herding everyone into a single mindset. Even 'religions" tend to splinter and become disenfranchised after awhile. In astronomy however, it's toe the mark, or no kiss your career, and probably 6-8 years of college math goodbye.

 

[Michael]

Electrocution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nothing about EM fields there.

Electrocution is not 'death by EM field'. You are off-topic.

It's a bit surreal to me to watch you dance around the fact that *electric* and *magnetic* fields have a physical effect on human beings. It's a bit like watching a YEC try to dance around nuclear decay data, or ice core samples. The rationalizations are *amazing* sometimes, but the end result is always denial of physical fact.

I said, you would like me to prove a negative?

In this particular case it would actually be empirically possible to demonstrate that no electrical currents flowed from the sun to the heliosphere. It would take some outrageous satellite technologies, long tethers and lot of cash, but it could actually be done.

On the other hand, how could I *possibly* demonstrate that dark energy does not exist, and does not have an effect on photons? Can you even name a source of "dark energy", let alone explain a way to "control' it?

No double standards, no matter how you twist it.

It's a *blatant* double standard, no matter how you try to "spin" it! One one hand you expect me to accept that dark energy has some effect on photons based on the *effect* you *think* you observe in photons! You can't even name a source of dark energy, let alone demonstrate it has any effect on a single photon in any lab!

On the other hand you apparently want demonstrated cause/effect relationships to be all spelled out, and demonstrated in the lab if the topic is in any way related to 'God'. It's a blatant double standard.

It appears that you are making it personal as you are providing emotional responses rather than scientific.

No, I handed you a bunch of examples where EM fields have a physical effect on human beings, and you simply handwaved them all away. Even Greek gods from thousands of years ago were associated with electrical energy.

Such is the nature of tax dollars. Perhaps if you could show that they were wrong on a scientific basis, instead of this ranting that you do.

It's amazing how you expect me to demonstrate a negative as it relates to "scientific" theory, yet you refuse to even apply that same logic to the topic of God! Somehow you're not obligated to 'disprove' anything that might be remotely related to the topic of God, but I have to "disprove" anything with to do with 'scientific" hypothetical entities?

Does your religion concur with the notion of what happens between two (or more) consenting adults is out of its jurisdiction?

Didn't I just say that it's none of my business? My spiritual teacher explained to me that I should not judge others, lest I be judged. I take that advice very seriously.

I asked, you would like me to prove a negative?

In this case it's possible to demonstrate the the sun is not electrically interacting with the heliosphere with enough actual physical hardware. Since you can't even name a source of "dark energy', it's impossible to demonstrate a negative.

I am not positing anything about dark energy, am I?

You're not offering me any logical cosmological alternatives are you? You're in complete denial of the fact that electric fields are part of an EM field aren't you?

[quoteSame as I did back for post #723. The "god" helmet is man-made. [/quote]

It doesn't matter that it's "man made". The universe creates many EM fields that have nothing to do with 'man'. They do however influence man on a daily basis starting with solar activity.

The referenced article does not state that the experiment replicates EM fields as found in nature. Did you not read it yourself?

You are *imposing additional standards* that you do not impose on "scientific' theories! You now expect me to provide *more* than simply experiments that demonstrate EM field influence human thought, you wish me to demonstrate that nature creates exactly the same fields in exactly the same way?

You can't even tell me where dark energy comes from, let alone show me a way to control it, let alone show me that nature creates dark energy in the way that your theory requires! Give me a break!

You said "An electric universe would definitely be able to have an EM influence on humans".

Show me an experiment the replicates the EM fields found in nature, and the measured effects - the influence - they have on the human brain.

I already did that. The EM fields that were created with that helmet are exactly the same kind of EM fields that nature creates.

I did actually offer a proposed (expensive) experiment that might be able to demonstrate exactly what you're asking for. At least there is a way to test the concept you're suggesting, whereas you can't even name a source of dark energy, inflation or exotic matter, let alone explain a way we might control it or measure it in experiments on Earth! Talk about *outrageous* double standards!

 

[Davian]

It's a bit surreal to me to watch you dance around the fact that *electric* and *magnetic* fields have a physical effect on human beings. It's a bit like watching a YEC try to dance around nuclear decay data, or ice core samples. The rationalizations are *amazing* sometimes, but the end result is always denial of physical fact.

What has this to do with electrocution not being 'death by EM field'?

In this particular case it would actually be empirically possible to demonstrate that no electrical currents flowed from the sun to the heliosphere. It would take some outrageous satellite technologies, long tethers and lot of cash, but it could actually be done.

On the other hand, <snip rant>

So you do want me to prove a negative.

It's a *blatant* double standard, no matter how you try to "spin" it! One one hand you expect me to accept that dark energy has some effect on photons based on the *effect* you *think* you observe in photons! You can't even name a source of dark energy, let alone demonstrate it has any effect on a single photon in any lab!

On the other hand you apparently want demonstrated cause/effect relationships to be all spelled out, and demonstrated in the lab if the topic is in any way related to 'God'. It's a blatant double standard.

No, this is just your way of complaining about a standard that you cannot meet.

No, I handed you a bunch of examples where EM fields have a physical effect on human beings, and you simply handwaved them all away. Even Greek gods from thousands of years ago were associated with electrical energy.

Which one was the god of EM fields?

It's amazing how you expect me to demonstrate a negative as it relates to "scientific" theory, yet you refuse to even apply that same logic to the topic of God! Somehow you're not obligated to 'disprove' anything that might be remotely related to the topic of God, but I have to "disprove" anything with to do with 'scientific" hypothetical entities?

No, I expect you to falsify it, or propose a hypothesis with greater explanatory power. You have not done so.

Didn't I just say that it's none of my business? My spiritual teacher explained to me that I should not judge others, lest I be judged. I take that advice very seriously.

I said, does your religion concur with the notion of what happens between two (or more) consenting adults is out of its jurisdiction?

In this case it's possible to demonstrate the the sun is not electrically interacting with the heliosphere with enough actual physical hardware. Since you can't even name a source of "dark energy', it's impossible to demonstrate a negative.

That sentence does not make any sense.

You're not offering me any logical cosmological alternatives are you? You're in complete denial of the fact that electric fields are part of an EM field aren't you?

Do you even read what you write?

No, I do not need to offer an alternative hypothese. Do you not get that?

It doesn't matter that it's "man made". The universe creates many EM fields that have nothing to do with 'man'. They do however influence man on a daily basis starting with solar activity.

And what is the nature of these EM-field-specific 'influences'?

You are *imposing additional standards* that you do not impose on "scientific' theories! You now expect me to provide *more* than simply experiments that demonstrate EM field influence human thought, you wish me to demonstrate that nature creates exactly the same fields in exactly the same way?
<snip rant> Give me a break!

No. If that is what you are claiming, then "put up or shut up", as the saying goes.

I already did that. The EM fields that were created with that helmet are exactly the same kind of EM fields that nature creates.

I did actually offer a proposed (expensive) experiment that might be able to demonstrate exactly what you're asking for. At least there is a way to test the concept you're suggesting, whereas <snip rant>

You said "An electric universe would definitely be able to have an EM influence on humans".

Show me an experiment the replicates the EM fields found in nature, and the measured effects - the influence - they have on the human brain.

The "god" helmet has not been shown to produce significant or lasting effects, so I do not know why you chose it as an example. But, if you like, tell me where a human of a thousand years ago, or a hundred thousand years ago, might encounter EM fields of the type generated by the "god" helmet.

 

[Davian]

In the sense that one is akin to professional blackmail and the other is akin to 'hope after death', they are a bit different, I'll grant you that. In terms of the effect on the here and now, which do you figure is the most 'important' in terms of being able to eat and keep a roof over your family's head?

As if exotic matter, dark energy and inflation rise above 'wishful thinking' from the same human imagination your fail to trust?

So how come you're just fine with observing the 'effects' of 'dark energy' on distant galaxies, yet you refuse to accept the 'effect' of God on human beings? Double standard much?

No, I would say that the professional blackmail is a *much* more invasive way to "get your way" in terms of herding everyone into a single mindset. Even 'religions" tend to splinter and become disenfranchised after awhile. In astronomy however, it's toe the mark, or no kiss your career, and probably 6-8 years of college math goodbye.

So it's not double standards when we are talking about different things.

 

[Michael]

So it's not double standards when we are talking about different things.

If anything the peer pressure is *worse* because it affects your life while on Earth. You're still applying two different standards.

At worse case you could accuse 'religion' of offering "afterlife enticements" that may or may not be "correct".

At worst case you have "scientists" blackmailing future young scientists for all time, herding everyone into the literal "dark ages" of astronomy, intent on keeping everyone ignorant of other ideas for the whole of time!

Holy Cow! The ability for abuse within astronomy today is *far* more destructive and direct.

 

[Michael]

What has this to do with electrocution not being 'death by EM field'?

Ya know....

Watching you try to tap dance around like this is much like watching a YEC tap dance around nuclear decay data, or ice core sample data. It's always based on a healthy dose of pure denial.

Psst:

Zeus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Even in *ancient* literature and *pagan* (from my JudeoChristian Perspective), God(s) has(ve) been associated with electrical discharges that can strike humans dead in an instant (and do so every single year).

To suggest that this isn't caused by an "external EM field" that has a direct effect on humans is a bit like trying to deny the dating methods of ice core samples. Give it a rest! The whole concept of God striking people dead is probably as old as the oldest "religion' on the planet!

The associations between *ELECTROmagnetism* and God are as ancient as religion itself.

So you do want me to prove a negative.

No, actually I don't. I have plenty of *positive* evidence in the form of Birkeland's work with cathode terellas in the lab from over 100 years ago to demonstrate that electrical activity takes place in space.

If you happened to 'doubt' me however, you could (if you so chose to do so) create actual experiments and take actual measurements in space to demonstrate that no current flows between the sun and the heliosphere.

Because I've limited myself to pure empirical physics, it is possible to demonstrate a negative in this case.

Now, let's look at what answers "science" offers us, shall we?

Where does "dark energy" come from? How do we "control" to see if has real effects on real photons in real experiments?

Ditto for inflation.

Where does exotic matter come from? Why have we seen no evidence of such things at LHC? Why should I put "faith' in exotic matter when more matter in the form of plasma was found just last year than had been know to exist in the whole of human history?

Can "science" explain that 4 billion light year long structure that shouldn't exist according to Lambda-CDM theory? Can it explain all those "anomalies" in the PLANCK (and WMAP) data sets?

No, this is just your way of complaining about a standard that you cannot meet.

I can (and have) met your standard (empirical I might add). You simply refuse to accept it! I've shown that ELECTRICAL and MAGNETIC fields can and do have a direct effect on the human form an on human thought.

In the first case you seem to wish to separate the movement of charged particles from "magnetism" evidently. In the second instance (magnetic fields) you want even *additional* evidence that nature can also do what the "God Helmet" can do in terms of generating EM fields.

In terms of the pure *strength* of EM fields, the strength of the magnetic fields near lightning strikes, or solar flare events is *many orders of magnitude greater than* anything produced by the "God Helmet". What more do you want?

Which one was the god of EM fields?

That would be Zues if you need to individualize "God" for some reason, but most monotheists simply refer to him as "God" these days, at least in English.

No, I expect you to falsify it, or propose a hypothesis with greater explanatory power. You have not done so.

Oh, baloney I haven't! EM fields in space have more 'explanatory power' than current "scientific theories' in fact. To this day the mainstream can't "explain" a solar flare event and the convection speeds that are necessary to make their previous theories work went up in smoke in the SDO heliosiesmology data!

Birkeland's cathode sun work in the lab has more "explanatory power" in terms of what happens in spacetime than all the dark and invisible entities of mainstream theory put together!

I said, does your religion concur with the notion of what happens between two (or more) consenting adults is out of its jurisdiction?

I've explained that to you several times now very clearly in fact. What you do in your bedroom with consenting adults is of no interest to me whatsoever. What more do you want? Must I personally *approve* of everything that you do? Do you need my personal permission for some reason?

That sentence does not make any sense.

Yes it does. Apparently you don't understand it, but if you were into solar physics (like me) you'd understand it.

I've stuck with pure empirical physics. It is therefore possible to construct experiments to demonstrate a positive (and a potentially a negative), in real experimentation inside this solar system. It might be 'expensive' mind you, but the potential exists to verify and/or falsify the theory here and now.

That is not even *possible* with 'dark energy'. Since you have never demonstrated a A) it exists, B) it's source, C) it's influence on photons, there is no way to verify or to falsify any claim related to "dark energy".

Ditto for inflation.

Exotic matter was the only hypothetical entity that can/could be tested in the lab, and all the "popular" SUSY theories already went up in smoke. Apparently astronomers are praying for a miracle in 2015 when we start exploring higher energy states, and testing the "bottom of the barrel' theories related to exotic matter.

Do you even read what you write?

No, I do not need to offer an alternative hypothese. Do you not get that?

We ultimately have to compare your concept of 'evidence' with what passes for 'evidence" in 'science'. Science actually accepts "evidence' that lacks cause/effect justification in the lab, whereas you will not.

Furthermore you seem to reject any and all related EM effects on human beings, regardless of the fact that they can be fully demonstrated and have been fully demonstrated on Earth in a variety of ways.

Apparently you wish to 'see the universe in action' as is generates EM fields and directs them inside the human brain? Even that type of evidence is theoretically possible, though admittedly far outside of my personal budget.

And what is the nature of these EM-field-specific 'influences'?

Well, I've covered everything from electrical shocks flowing through the human form, to magnetic field influences on the human brain. So long as the universe is capable of generating EM fields, those fields are capable of influencing human beings. It's really very simple, and very simple to demonstrate. It seems much harder to "accept" if one happens to be an atheist/agnostic, if your behaviors are any indication.

No. If that is what you are claiming, then "put up or shut up", as the saying goes.

The somewhat humorous (and rather exasperating) part of this conversation is that I have "put up" several instances in which EM fields have been shown to have a direct empirical effect on human beings while on Earth.

"Science" cannot show any tangible effect of "dark energy" on anything on Earth, not photons, not human beings, nothing! Science cannot show any tangible effect of inflation on any subatomic or atomic particle, or anything else for that matter. Ditto for hypothetical forms of exotic matter.

You said "An electric universe would definitely be able to have an EM influence on humans".

Show me an experiment the replicates the EM fields found in nature, and the measured effects - the influence - they have on the human brain.

The "god" helmet has not been shown to produce significant or lasting effects, so I do not know why you chose it as an example. But, if you like, tell me where a human of a thousand years ago, or a hundred thousand years ago, might encounter EM fields of the type generated by the "god" helmet.

Lightning has been shown to have significant and long lasting effects on the human body. Nature produces them. They strike people dead all the time. Magnetic fields have been linked to changes in thoughts that occur *inside* the human brain.

The God Helmet experiments would not necessarily produce any "long lasting" effects because the "source" of these influences is different, and the scenario internally is different (not in prayer, etc), and the circumstances are entirely different!

You're not just asking me for the moon, you're asking for Mars.

I'm sorry, but this conversation has all the earmarks of pure denial on your part. Humans have associated God with electrical discharges since the dawn of the first "religions". The fact you remain in staunch denial of the fact that humans have always assumed that God could "strike people dead at will", and/or in denial of the fact that humans are stuck dead by lightening every single year.

 

[Michael]

No, I do not need to offer an alternative hypothese. Do you not get that?

Actually, if you intend to participate in*this particular* thread, yes, you probably will be asked and expected to provide evidence to substantiate mainstream theory. You may want to respond to my own beliefs in the Empirical Theory Of God (2) thread. In that thread you can simply play the role of "skeptic" if you prefer.